It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose?

Wikipedia says;

"The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549."

and

"The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there."[6]"

In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place.

"Another journal which (quite oddly) also published the Soon et al study, &#8220;Energy and Environment&#8221;, is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing &#8220;I&#8217;m following my political agenda &#8212; a bit, anyway. But isn&#8217;t that the right of the editor?&#8221;.

Energy and Environment ("E&E"), published since 1989, describes itself as "an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use." Its editor since 1996 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. The journal has an editorial advisory board of 20 members, including 11 professors and 5 other PhDs in 2008 and is published by Mulit-Science. The journal can be found at 39 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress.[1]

The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549.

The sources that grade journals at to their scientific credentials have found that one wanting. They list it as a trade journal, not a peer reviewed journal.

Well, I surely don't have time to look at all of the sources that were posted. Discounting over half, as they are not from an accredited peer reviewed journal, those from Energy and Environment, I looked at one that was from a peer reviewed journal.

Guess what, it did not deny AGW at all. In fact, what it stated was that there was another effect superimposed on anthropogenic warming. Another bunch of dips that cannot accurately read a scientific paper.

Conclusions
[13] The above observational and modeling results suggest
the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the network&#8217;s synchronous
state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift
after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

"Another journal which (quite oddly) also published the Soon et al study, &#8220;Energy and Environment&#8221;, is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing &#8220;I&#8217;m following my political agenda &#8212; a bit, anyway. But isn&#8217;t that the right of the editor?&#8221;.

Well, I surely don't have time to look at all of the sources that were posted. Discounting over half, as they are not from an accredited peer reviewed journal, those from Energy and Environment, I looked at one that was from a peer reviewed journal.

Guess what, it did not deny AGW at all. In fact, what it stated was that there was another effect superimposed on anthropogenic warming. Another bunch of dips that cannot accurately read a scientific paper.

Conclusions
[13] The above observational and modeling results suggest
the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the networks synchronous
state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift
after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

Click to expand...

So Rocks..You are telling me that the summation of 450 + 10 papers are included in your itty bitty paragraph. How trite, cheap and typical of you.

You wouldn't by any chance be a political hack, heh? If it smells like donkey shit. Or as another poster so eloquently states. "Just sayin"

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!